damn BaeOC is now dunking on Geppetto
damn BaeOC is now dunking on Geppetto
https://twitter.com/twt/status/1088200188089565184
dunking on those christian retards
I don't deny man made climate change, I just don't think that a "carbon" tax of any kind is warranted.
I also see conflicting reports about global warming, that coupled with the dogmatic history of academia, and the fact that these nerds will tow the line without question, makes me question the accuracy of the current global warming ethos.
I honestly believe, and have believed that the global warming debate is just a distraction from the fact that the Rockefeller family is responsible for the melting of the ice caps, and shelved technology that would literally make vehicles fly on zero energy.
It's funny to see so many smart people espouse regurgitated propaganda and not really focus on the history of how things came to be.
I certainly don't expect any different from this ass puppet.
Just another person in the long line of ass puppet politicians that just do what ever cause celeb is the flavor of the day, yet nothing they claim to do ever actually matches their actions.
Last edited by Mintjewlips; 01-24-2019 at 05:38 PM.
"Druff would suck his own dick if it were long enough"- Brandon "drexel" Gerson
"ann coulter literally has more common sense than pfa."-Sonatine
"Real grinders supports poker fraud"- Ray Davis
"DRILLED HER GOOD"- HONGKONGER
"Druff would suck his own dick if it were long enough"- Brandon "drexel" Gerson
"ann coulter literally has more common sense than pfa."-Sonatine
"Real grinders supports poker fraud"- Ray Davis
"DRILLED HER GOOD"- HONGKONGER
You actually raise a good point here.
Her Twitter seems to be closely managed here, meant to spout off clever retorts to critics.
I mentioned to someone that her "All your base are belong to us" tweet was likely not written by her, because she was probably too young to appreciate that meme when it was popular (early 2000s).
I think she has some handlers at this point who are trying to build her brand as snarky, clever, and hip, perhaps to counteract the clueless image she portrays in many interviews.
"Druff would suck his own dick if it were long enough"- Brandon "drexel" Gerson
"ann coulter literally has more common sense than pfa."-Sonatine
"Real grinders supports poker fraud"- Ray Davis
"DRILLED HER GOOD"- HONGKONGER
did mint just criticize AOC for going to college?
"Druff would suck his own dick if it were long enough"- Brandon "drexel" Gerson
"ann coulter literally has more common sense than pfa."-Sonatine
"Real grinders supports poker fraud"- Ray Davis
"DRILLED HER GOOD"- HONGKONGER
They should send her on a special envoy to Venezuela.
That crowd would tear her to bits if she opened her mouth with that socialist crap there.
"Billionaire's shouldn't be allowed..." that quote right there is the start of a Hitler/Stalin/Mao/Fill in dictator name... if I ever heard one.
You rich guy you shouldn't be allowed to do X with your money because the Gov says so. Get bent!
That's the irony, socialism could never exist if there are no billionaires.....THINK ABOUT IT...
"Druff would suck his own dick if it were long enough"- Brandon "drexel" Gerson
"ann coulter literally has more common sense than pfa."-Sonatine
"Real grinders supports poker fraud"- Ray Davis
"DRILLED HER GOOD"- HONGKONGER
I read an article by Paul Krugman that basically said that he and other Keynesians we’re contacted by her and the 70% tax idea was from them.
I don’t have a problem with politicians getting advice, but the media gushing about how she is schooling everyone on economics is a bit much.
Maduro is more kleptocrat than socialist. Good to see PFA as uninformed as ever.
A senator with people working for her. I don't know about that, that sounds kinda far fetched.
The reason for the better-than-expected support of the 70% tax rate is that most of the US population is now too young to remember the general public opposition to such a high rate in the late '70s. Even people 50 years old today are likely too young to have been aware (or cared) about tax rates at that time.
Reagan won so soundly in 1980 largely because of a then-growing distrust and frustration with govenrment, taxes, inflation, and unsuccessful foreign policy.
Reagan first lowered the top rate from 70% to 50%, and then a few years later, dropped it from 50% to 28%.
There was general support for both of these moves.
Today, the left is using public concern over health care and increasing housing expenses to wage a class war against the super wealthy.
The basic premise is simple: Vilify a tiny percentage of the country, and use the basic human nature of jealousy and resentment to gain support.
That's why we're now seeing a new tactic -- a war not just on high income, but on wealth in general. Elizabeth Warren announced she wants a tax on existing wealth for the very rich. Sounds like double taxation to me.
On Facebook, I'm seeing a lot of rhetoric from my usual liberal "friends" stating that the country has a crisis of "hoarding money" by the super wealthy, which is funny when you think about it, because they're basically vilifying people for doing well and saving their money. Now apparently you're evil if you do that. If you make a fortune, you're expected to re-invest it and keep the money constantly at risk? I don't get it.
But it's a pretty effective tactic, as long as there's not a backlash at the time being against big government (which right now there isn't).
"Hey, you! Are you worried about expensive healthcare? Expensive housing? Expensive college? Well, guess what? We can solve all of that, if we just make the super wealthy pay a bit more. After all, they have more money than they'll ever need, but they're just sitting on it like a bunch of selfish kings and queens. We can't allow that anymore. It's time to start making these people pay their fair share, and allow the government to afford to help out good, hardworking Americans like you!"
Never mind whether this is fair, ethical, or will actually help the economy.
Mind you, the super-rich are already the ones responsible for a surprisingly high percentage of tax revenues in this country. When does a tax rate become too high?
If you support 70%, why not 80%? Why not 90%? Why not 99%? After all, they're super rich and can afford it, right?
In fact, why don't we just take all of their wealth beyond, say $5 million, and use it to fund health care and free college. Nothing wrong with that, right?
I heard that about 40% of Americans think they're in the top 1% or will be within the next 5 years. People are deluded and are not class concious and thats why they don't support this law. They hear 1% and think "hey, thats me!" or "that could be me".
I doubt it's 40%, but let's go with that.
What's wrong with aspiring to be successful, and then thinking how it will be unfair to you if that eventual success is punished by the government?
I think that's a far healthier way to think than, "Oh fuck, I'm going to be a working stiff my whole life, so I totally support unfair taxes as long as they're only soaking the rich guys."
Here's another way of looking at it.
Say that a local law was passed, requiring everyone over 60 to give $100 per year to each person living within an 0.25 mile radius who was under 60.
(Obviously this wouldn't be legal, but let's pretend it could be.)
Being under 60, I would be receiving money this year.
However, knowing that I'll be 60 in 13 years, I would also think about the future, and say, "Oh shit... I'm going to be stuck giving money away at that point!", and I wouldn't support it.
But let's say God himself came down and told me that I'm going to die at age 59.
Would I still support the law?
I wouldn't, because I'd still deem it unfair, even though it would benefit me.
Would others in the same situation support the law, especially if they knew they were going to die before 60? Many would, especially if they felt that they were struggling and could use those $100 bills from the old people.
So it's very fallacious to say, "X% of people support taxing the super wealthy, so it must be right", because it's a classic case of a need to protect the minority from abuse by the majority.
We need to look at whether taxing the super-rich 70% after a certain amount of income is fair, and I maintain that it isn't.
Again, where does it stop? If 70% is okay, what isn't okay, and why?
I bet it wouldn't be hard to find people on the left who would support a 99% tax rate on the super wealthy.
It’s easy as hell to support something where you’re taking money from someone else and not yourself. It’s the ol, “Two wolves and one sheep vote on what to have for dinner” scenario.
What scares the shit out of me is to these people, taxing anything over $10M at 70% isn’t their end goal — it’s just the start. If it goes through, one of two things will happen — it’ll be a success or a failure. If successful, they’ll say how awesome it is, and since it’s so good, we should do more of it. So now it’s 70% above $5M and 90% above $10M. If it’s a failure, they’ll say how it’s “not enough” and, again, shoot for 70% above $5M and 90% above $10M. And so on.
The less government is involved, the better. If you want to make the world a better place, give money to charities or donate to people who are in need.
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)